Local Government

Summary

Mr C and his wife owned a flat in a tenement block. The owners of the block next door knew that a chimney-head on their building was deteriorating, but had done nothing about it. When three years later lumps of masonry fell on to the pavement, the council acted immediately under section 29(3) of the Building (Scotland) Act 2003 to make the chimney-head safe and prevent further danger to the public. The chimney-head next door had to be taken down. When this happened, it turned out that it was in fact connected to the chimney-head on Mr C's block, and it also had dangerous defects. The council got a quote to take down the chimney-head on Mr C's block and rebuild both. Arrangements were also made for another contractor nominated by the co-owners in Mr C's block to access scaffolding to let the owners there instruct works separately. The contractor, however, did not turn up and the council then instructed the works on the basis of the quotation they had obtained. The chimney-heads were rebuilt from the same bases, but contained inside a single casing.

When the apportioned bills for the work were issued, Mr C and other owners in his block disputed them and he eventually complained to the council. When he was unhappy with their response, Mr C brought his complaints to us. We did not uphold three of these - that the council failed to explain to Mr C his legal rights, failed to consult with him over the emergency repair, and unreasonably combined the two chimney-heads into one structure. However, we upheld his complaint that the council did not provide him with estimates for the repair, and we made recommendations aimed at improving communication.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• review their procedures to ensure that in similar situations in the future they provide owners with information on the legislation under which they are acting and refer them to the relevant section of their website; and
• ensure that, in similar future situations, decisions taken orally on re-instatement work are confirmed in writing to interested parties.

Summary

Mr C entered into pre-application discussions with the council with a view to building a house behind his property. About three months later, after receiving an email from an area planning officer, Mr C submitted an application for planning consent. This was the subject of a 'report of handling' which, in terms of the council's procedures, was put before local councillors who had the ability to refer the matter to a committee for a decision. The councillors did not refer the application, and it was left to council officers to determine the application under delegated powers. They refused the application. Mr C could then have asked for the matter to be placed before the local review board, but before requesting this he complained to the council about the decision. He said that the council planning officers did not provide reasonable advice at the pre-application stage, and that the council's report of handling was not reasonably fit for purpose.

We took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the pre-application advice given to Mr C was reasonable. The adviser also said that he was satisfied that the report of handling was reasonably fit for purpose. He noted that the council had admitted to one error but he agreed that this would not have altered the officers' recommendation for refusal or misled the councillors who might otherwise have called in the application to be decided by a committee.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council had not appropriately handled a planning application for an extension to an existing quarry. In particular, he complained that the public and neighbours to the site had not been suitably consulted and notified of the application, that the consent was at odds with an existing planning consent for the site, that the applicant had not provided all the information required and that he was not able to make representations in person to the planning committee.

Our investigation found that the quarry has existing planning consent for mineral extraction and subsequent land fill. The application to which these complaints related was for an extension to the mineral extraction to one side of the area that already had consent for such extraction. We also took independent advice from one of our planning advisers, who said that the application had been appropriately notified through the local press, and that neither an environmental impact assessment nor pre-application consultation was necessary. The adviser also noted that there were shortfalls in the site plan provided, but that this was probably because the council already had plans from a previous application. He said that the council had were not required to make all documents on an application publicly available, and the application had been dealt with appropriately in relation to the plans and information that were considered. We did not, therefore, uphold this complaint, but we made a recommendation to the council to ensure they have all the plans required for future planning applications.

The planning application was determined under delegated powers, and this meant that the council's planning committee were not required to consider the application. The process was conducted according to council policy, and we did not uphold Mr C's complaint that he should have been able to make representation to the committee.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• ensure that plans submitted with a planning application are sufficient to satisfy the terms of Part 3 Regulation 9 section 3 (a) and 3 (b) of the Town and Country Planning (Development and Management Procedure) (Scotland) Regulations 2008.

Summary

After damaging her car tyres on a pothole in the road, Mrs C submitted a claim to the council's road services department. She was told that it would be investigated and passed to the council's insurers, who would contact her. As she heard nothing Mrs C asked for an update and was advised there was a backlog. She complained to the council about the time it was taking to process her claim, highlighting that their published guidelines said that they would pass claims to their insurers within 21 days. The council apologised for the delay, and said the claim had been passed to the insurers.

Mrs C was then told a few days later that her claim had been forwarded to the council's insurance service for onward submission to their insurers. Mrs C complained to the council that this contradicted what she had previously been told, and she complained again about the delay. The council said that the delays were due to staff absence and pressure of work, but that there was no evidence that she had been lied to about her claim. Mrs C remained unhappy and complained to us about the delays in processing her claim and handling her complaint, and about the council's communications.

We upheld all of Mrs C's complaints. Our investigation found that it took the council more than three times longer than their published timescales to process the claim to the point of passing it to their insurers. As the council had acknowledged, although it was due to numbers and pressure of work, this was unacceptable. We noted, however, that the council are now processing claims normally within timescales. We also found that the council exceeded their own complaints handling timescales by a few days, which appeared to be due to how information was logged on their complaints system.

Finally we found it unacceptable that the council did not communicate with Mrs C between receiving the claim and her contact to find out what was happening, especially in light of their published timescales for passing claims to their insurers. We also found that the council's communications, while later clarified, did at first lead to confusion about what stage the claim was at.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise that they did not respond to Mrs C's complaint within their published timescales;
• consider reviewing what steps they might take to ensure timelines for complaints handling are met;
• apologise for not updating Mrs C much earlier about the delays with her claim, and for the lack of clarity in some of their communications; and
• consider reviewing what steps they might take to ensure claimants are kept updated and that clear explanations are provided.

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of Mrs A about tenancy charges raised by the council when Mrs A terminated her former tenancy and moved to a new house. There was no pre-termination inspection but after Mrs A left, the council arranged for removal and re-instatement works to take away fittings etc. Mrs A was told that she would have to pay for these, and was given an estimate of £620 excluding VAT. Mrs A replied saying that she considered the works were excessive and disputed several of the items listed. She received no response, and the council's next contact was more than six months later when she received an invoice for £867.11. She asked for a more detailed breakdown, then complained to the council about the charges.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council failed to inspect Mrs A's former home before she left it and that their position at the time on when or whether such inspections should be carried out was inconsistent. We also found that there was unreasonable delay in sending Mrs A the invoice for repairs and that the council had not explained why the final invoice figure exceeded the estimate by so much. We also found that they failed to deal with correspondence according to their published processes and procedures.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs A for their failings in handling the complaint; and
• reconsider, in the light of the information in our decision notice, whether there are grounds to reduce the sum claimed in the invoice.

Summary

Mr C complained that the council took an unreasonable length of time to respond to his complaints and did not adequately investigate and respond to his concerns about the actions of a school with regard to the alleged bullying of his son. He said that he was very concerned about his son's welfare as a result of the alleged incidents.

We upheld his complaints, as our investigation found that although the council apologised and gave various reasons for delays, the complaints process took an unacceptably long time to complete. It was only after we contacted them that the council eventually gave a final response, nearly seven months after Mr C first complained. Even then, it did not address all the issues and was incomplete, although they later gave him additional information.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise for the unreasonable time taken to manage the entire process of responding to Mr C's complaints;
• consider reviewing what steps they might take to ensure timelines for complaints handling are met and appropriate cases are given priority;
• apologise for not adequately investigating and responding to Mr C's concerns;
• share the findings of our investigation with appropriate staff; and
• consider how to ensure school staff are fully aware of the anti-bullying strategy and the investigation process for allegations of bullying.

Summary

Mrs C complained that the council had not followed their procedures when dealing with concerns about her son at school. Mrs C was concerned about incidents of alleged bullying, as well as the school's communication with her.

We looked at the relevant procedures and the school's records about Mrs C's son. We found that the council had taken reasonable steps to deal with failings they had identified previously. We also found that, while some aspects could have been dealt with better, where procedures were in place they were followed, and the actions of school staff were reasonable in the circumstances. Although we did not uphold Mrs C's complaint, we did make two recommendations to reinforce good practice.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mrs C for the failings identified as a result of their investigation into her complaint; and
• consider sending parents of bullies and victims a copy of the council's bullying booklet as part of the follow-up to recorded bullying incidents.

Summary

Mr and Mrs C had had a number of problems with their neighbours, which they believed stemmed from their objections to planning applications made made several years before. The council had investigated other concerns about anti-social behaviour some time before, but this time Mr and Mrs C raised further issues. These were investigated by a council officer, who consulted with the police and interviewed Mr C and Mrs C separately. The officer said he would provide a dossier and seek legal advice within the council. He sought the advice some three months later, and it was provided nine weeks after that. The advice was that the information held did not meet the statutory test for the council to pursue formal action.

Mr and Mrs C then wrote to the council's chief executive, complaining about the five month delay in clarifying the council's position. The response (from the deputy chief executive), however, referred back to the original complaints, and ignored two requests for information. Our investigation upheld most of Mr and Mrs C's complaints as we found that the council's response took too long, and was inadequate. We did not uphold their complaint that the council team failed to deal with antisocial behaviour in accordance with council policies and procedures.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• apologise to Mr and Mrs C for the delay in providing them with clarification on whether it was open to the Safer Communities Team to pursue formal action and for the failure to respond to their requests for information raised in their complaints.

Summary

After his partner died, Mr C notified the council of this change in his circumstances. He complained to us that it was then discovered that there had been an error in the handling of his benefit claims, which meant that for over a year he had been in receipt of a payment that he was not due. When he brought his complaint to us, the council had investigated the matter, and we were satisfied that this had been undertaken fully, so we decided reinvestigation of the circumstances behind the error was not required. However, Mr C told us that he was still unhappy because he believed he missed out on the opportunity to apply for a discretionary housing payment and of receiving council tax benefit for a period of four months, and because he had received a number of notices from the council with different information about what he owed.

When the council investigated Mr C's complaint, they upheld it and found that a longstanding error in recording had resulted in him receiving an overpayment of benefit. They had apologised to him for this, and had said that they would not ask him to repay the benefit paid in error. The council also told him that they would improve their processes and procedures to prevent a repeat.

Our investigation found that, despite this, Mr C had received notice shortly afterwards that his rent account was in arrears and that the council were asking him to repay an overpayment of council tax benefit from the date that the Department of Works and Pensions (DWP) told them of a further change in his benefit entitlement.

When we investigated, we found the situation very confusing and we were not surprised that Mr C had been similarly affected. We established that he had not missed out on a discretionary housing payment, as he had feared, because the rent arrears he had were not due to council error but a more recent change in his benefit entitlement, but we found that the council had failed to consider his request for this. We also found that it was unreasonable, having written off the overpayment of benefit for rent up to the end of the financial year, that he was being pursued for an overpayment of council tax benefit for this period, when it was the council's error that had affected his benefit.

Recommendations

We recommended that the council:

• should cancel or write off the council tax arrears for 2012/2013 on Mr C's account;
• write to Mr C with a clear, simply set out explanation of how his rent and council tax accounts currently stand, and of any arrears and how these are made up;
• write to the DWP confirming that the error in Mr C's benefit claim arose on the council's part and was not attributable to him in any way; and
• make him a payment as a goodwill gesture to reflect that they failed to meet a reasonable standard of service.
• 

Summary

Mr C complained on behalf of his daughter (Ms A). Ms A has a disability and Mr C is her main carer. When Ms A presented herself to the council as homeless, they placed her in temporary accommodation. Mr C was concerned that the accommodation was not suited to his daughter's needs and he was also unhappy as he felt that the council did not attend appropriately to problems that Ms A encountered while in that accommodation.

We upheld Mr C's complaints. Our investigation found that the council had allocated Ms A a temporary property which, in the circumstances, was the most suitable one available. There had, however, been a delay in providing further required adaptations. The council had recognised that they did not carry out equality impact assessments on their temporary accommodation, and had since put this in place. They had also added a new unit to their temporary accommodation facilities, fitted with aids and adaptations. We also found that although the council had responded reasonably when repairs were reported to be needed, there had been a problem with accumulation of rubbish outside the property, which had resulted in a number of problems for Ms A. We noted, however, that the council had taken appropriate action to stop this happening again and so we did not find it necessary to make any recommendations.